W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:08:35 -0800
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <3ECA38C9-8DC1-4711-9511-A7D99FBC64E1@mnot.net>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

My thinking was that it may be necessary to preserve the MUST on the  
presence of the header (in case any software had been written to  
depend upon its presence), but to loosen the implied requirement that  
the list of headers be complete.

The text I proposed didn't really do that too well either, now that I  
look at it...

On 04/02/2008, at 7:18 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> I'm with Roy.  The MUST is unnecessary because the response has
> unambiguous semantics with or without the Allow header.  I'd prefer
> "MAY" but could live with "SHOULD".
> Mark.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 07:08:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC